--- In [email protected], "Phil Rushton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [canals-list] Re: Licence fee debate - The final
chapter
> (for now)
>
>

snip


Not that I'm particulayl impressed with the
> advantages of the system, which would mean that people who leave
their
> boats
> moored on their official on-line moorings for 50 weeks of the year
> would get
> away very cheaply, when, to my mind, they ought to be paying a heck
of
> a lot
> for the inconveniencde they give to people who actually move about.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> What inconvenience do you mean, Mike?
>
> Phil
> :-)
>

I think he means the vast majorities' total inability to moor their
boats in a manner that is compatable with other users moving at their
normal speed.

Again I make it quiet clear that I see a difference
between "overnight mooring"  with pins etc. and permenant moorings.
IF long term moorers or their landlords can not provide adequte
mooring points AND ensured that the boats are correctly secured, then
either BW should do it for them and charge handsomely for it, or the
mooring permits should be withdrawn.

This is not about speeding, it is about trying to manouver any form
of boat on idle for mile after mile (thats how it feels), especially
with a bit of wind.

Note - I do not append a smiley, I think the whole matter of securing
boats on "on line" moorings needs sorting out.

Here we go again :-)    Now a smiley

Tony Brooks






SPONSORED LINKS
Sports fund raising Sports psychology degree Sport psychology college
Sport psychology course Sport nutrition Outdoor recreation


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to